Jesuit Colleges and their Work before the Suppression of the Society
(1540-1773).
Within fifty years from the solemn approbation of the Society of
Jesus, the Order had spread all over the world, from Europe to the
Indies, from China and Japan in the East, to Mexico and Brazil in
the West. Wherever the Church was not actually persecuted, as in
England, there sprang up educational institutions. Shortly after the
death of the fifth General, Father Aquaviva, in 1615, the Society
possessed three hundred and seventy-three colleges; in 1706 the number
of collegiate and university establishments was seven hundred and
sixty-nine, and in 1756, shortly before the suppression, the number was
seven hundred and twenty-eight.[279] In 1584 the classes of the Roman
College were attended by two thousand, one hundred and eight students.
At Rouen, in France, there were regularly two thousand. Throughout the
seventeenth century the numbers at the College of Louis-le-Grand, in
Paris, varied between eighteen hundred and three thousand. In 1627, the
one Province of Paris had in its fourteen colleges 13,195 students,
which would give an average of nearly one thousand to each college.
In the same year Rouen had 1,968, Rennes 1,485, Amiens 1,430. In 1675
there were in Louis-le-Grand 3,000, in Rennes 2,500, in Toulouse
2,000.[280] Cologne began its roll in 1558 with almost 800 students;
Dillingen in Bavaria had 760 in 1607. At Utrecht in Holland there
were 1000; at Antwerp and Brussels each 600 scholars. Münster in 1625
had 1300, Munich had 900 in 1602. The absolute average is not known,
three hundred seems, however, the very lowest. This would give to the
seven hundred and more institutions a sum total of two hundred and ten
thousand students, all trained under one system. That thus the Jesuits
exercised a great influence on the minds of men, is undeniable. The
question is only, was their influence for good or evil? Was their
teaching a benefit to the individuals, and more so, was it advantageous
to the communities? Was their method considered as productive of good
results? Let us listen to contemporaneous writers in high positions,
to men known for their intellectual achievements, to men who, owing
to their religious tenets, cannot be suspected of partiality to the
Jesuits.
The testimony of Lord Bacon, the English philosopher and statesman,
is well known: “Of the Jesuit colleges, although in regard of their
superstition I may say, ‘_Quo meliores eo deteriores_,’ yet in regard
of this and some other points of learning and moral matters, I may
say, as Agesilaus said to his enemy Pharnabaces, ‘_Talis cum sis,
utinam noster esses_’.”[281] Our American historian Bancroft does not
hesitate to say of the Jesuits: “Their colleges became the best schools
in the world.”[282] And Ranke writes: “It was found that young people
gained more with them in six months than with other teachers in two
years. Even Protestants removed their children from distant gymnasia to
confide them to the care of the Jesuits.”[283]--This last fact was more
than once lamented by Protestants.
In 1625 a report of the Gymnasium in Brieg, Silesia, complains
bitterly of the lamentable condition of this school. This condition is
ascribed chiefly to the theological wranglings of the Lutherans and
the Reformed, and to the inability of the teachers, who frequently
were engaged in trades, or as inn-keepers, or acted as lawyers, and
thus neglected their duties as teachers. The report then adds: “If the
teachers knew how to preserve the confidence of the parents, then an
interest in the school would soon be manifested by those who now prefer
to send their children to the Jesuits. _For these Jesuits know better
how to treat boys according to their nature, and to keep alive a zeal
for studies._”[284]
Also in the Protestant Margravate of Brandenburg the condition of
the schools induced parents, noblemen, state officials, and citizens,
to send their sons to foreign Jesuit colleges. But then the preachers
started a violent campaign against this practice, although they had to
admit that the Jesuit pupils were better trained than those educated
in the Margravate. Consequently, the Elector John George issued
severe decrees against sending children to foreign schools (1564 and
1572).[285] Professors and preachers in Lemgo, Danzig, Königsberg,
and in other cities, denounced the “godless practice of Protestants
who sacrificed their children to the monstrous Moloch of Jesuit
schools.”[286]
Wilhelm Roding, Professor in Heidelberg, in a book: _Against the
impious schools of the Jesuits_, dedicated to Frederick III., Elector
of the Palatinate, gives expression to the following complaint: “Very
many who want to be counted as Christians send their children to the
schools of the Jesuits. This is a most dangerous thing, as the Jesuits
are excellent and subtle philosophers, above everything intent on
applying all their learning to the education of youth. They are the
finest and most dexterous of teachers, and know how to accommodate
themselves to the natural gifts of every pupil.” Another Protestant,
Andrew Dudith of Breslau, wrote: “I am not surprised if I hear that
one goes to the Jesuits. They possess varied learning, teach, preach,
write, dispute, instruct youth without taking money, and all this they
do with indefatigable zeal; moreover, they are distinguished for moral
integrity, and modest behaviour.”[287] A Protestant preacher attributed
the popularity of the Jesuit schools to magical practices of these
wicked men: “These Jesuits have diabolical practices; they anoint their
pupils with secret salves of the devil, by which they so attract and
attach the children to themselves that they can only with difficulty
be separated from these wizards, and always long to go back to them.
Therefore, the Jesuits ought not only to be expelled but to be burnt,
otherwise they can never be gotten rid of.” Of the Hildesheim Jesuits
it was said that they used some secret charms to hasten the progress of
their pupils.[288]
A most remarkable testimony to the ability of the Jesuits as teachers
was rendered by the words and actions of two non-Catholic rulers, at
the time of the suppression of the Society in 1773, namely by King
Frederick of Prussia and Empress Catharine of Russia; we shall revert
to their testimony further on in this chapter.
In a history of the Jesuit colleges mention must be made of the
literary and scientific works published by Jesuits. The colleges of
the Society were as many colonies of writers. It is impossible to
give here an adequate description of this work of the Society; the
Bibliography of the Order comprises nine folio volumes, and contains
the names of thirteen thousand Jesuit authors--many, if not most
of them, professors--who published works on almost every branch of
learning.[289] Even Dr. Huber admires the literary and scientific
activity of the Order: “More than three hundred Jesuits have written
grammars on living and dead languages, and more than ninety-five
languages have been taught by members of the Order. In mathematics
and natural sciences there are among them first class scientists.
Many astronomical observatories were erected by them, and directed
with great success.”[290] Still more striking is the testimony of the
bitterest enemy of the Jesuits, d’Alembert. He writes: “Let us add--for
we must be just--that no religious society whatever can boast of so
many members distinguished in science and literature. The Jesuits have
successfully cultivated eloquence, history, archaeology, geometry, and
literature. There is scarcely a class of writers in which they have no
representatives of the first rank; they have even good French writers,
a distinction of which no other religious order can boast.”[291]
Some of the linguistic works of the Jesuits are of the greatest
importance and even celebrity in the history of the science of
language. The first, not in time but in importance, is that of the
Spanish Jesuit Hervas. Professor Max Müller of Oxford speaks of this
Jesuit in the highest terms, and says that he wishes to point out his
real merits, which other historians have overlooked.[292] While working
among the polyglottous tribes of South America, the attention of
Father Hervas was drawn to a systematic study of languages. After the
expulsion of the Jesuits from South America in 1767, he lived in Rome
amidst the numerous Jesuit missionaries who assisted him greatly in his
researches.
His works are of a most comprehensive character; the most important
is his _Catalogue of Languages_, in six volumes. “If we compare the
work of Hervas with a similar work which excited much attention towards
the end of the last century, and is even now more widely known than
Hervas’--I mean Court de Gebelin’s _Monde primitif_--we shall see at
once how far superior the Spanish Jesuit is to the French philosopher.
Gebelin treats Persian, Armenian, Malay, and Coptic as dialects of
Hebrew; he speaks of Bask as a dialect of Celtic, and he tries to
discover Hebrew, Greek, English, and French words in the idioms of
America. Hervas, on the contrary, though embracing in his catalogue
five times the number of languages that were known to Gebelin, is
most careful not to allow himself to be carried away by theories not
warranted by the evidence before him. It is easy now to point out
mistakes and inaccuracies in Hervas, but I think that those who have
blamed him most are those who ought most to have acknowledged their
obligations to him. To have collected specimens and notices of more
than three hundred languages, is no small matter. But Hervas did
more. He himself composed grammars of more than forty languages. He
was one of the first to point out that the true affinity of languages
must be determined chiefly by grammatical evidence, not by mere
similarity of words. He proved, by a comparative list of declensions
and conjugations, that Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopie, and
Aramaic are all but dialects of one original language, and constitute
one family of speech, the Semitic. He scouted the idea of deriving
all languages of mankind from Hebrew. He had perceived clear traces
of affinity between Chinese and Indo-Chinese dialects; also between
Hungarian, Lapponian, and Finnish, three dialects now classed as
members of the Turanian family. He had proved that Bask was not, as was
commonly supposed, a Celtic dialect, but an independent language....
Nay, one of the most brilliant discoveries in the history of the
science of language, the establishment of the Malay and Polynesian
family of speech ... was made by Hervas long before it was-worked out,
and announced to the world by Humboldt.”[293]
Great are also the merits of Jesuits in regard to the study of
Sanskrit. “The first European Sanskrit scholar was the Jesuit Robert
de Nobili,”[294] a nephew of the famous Cardinal Robert Bellarmine.
According to the words of Max Müller, he must have been far advanced
in the knowledge of the sacred language and literature of the
Brahmans.[295] The first Sanskrit grammar written by a European is
commonly said to be that of the German Jesuit Hanxleden († 1732).
However, this honor belongs to another German Jesuit, Heinrich Roth
(† 1668), who wrote a Sanskrit grammar almost a century before
Hanxleden.[296] Father Du Pons, in 1740, published a comprehensive and,
in general, a very accurate description of the various branches of
Sanskrit literature.[297] Of Father Coeurdoux Max Müller writes that
he anticipated the most important results of comparative philology by
at least fifty years; at the same time the Oxford Professor expresses
his astonishment that the work of this humble missionary has attracted
so little attention, and only very lately received the credit that
belongs to it.[298] Father Calmette wrote a poetical work in excellent
Sanskrit, the _Ezour Veda_, which gave rise to an interesting literary
discussion. Voltaire declared it to be four centuries older than
Alexander the Great, and pronounced it the most precious gift which
the West had received from the East. On account of the Christian
ideas contained in the poem, the atheistic philosophers of France
thought they had found in it a most effective weapon for attacking
Christianity. Unfortunately for these philosophers, an English traveler
discovered Father Calmette’s manuscript in Pondichery.[299]
Various important works on the dialects of India were written by
Jesuits, among others several grammars and dictionaries of the Tamil
language, for which the first types were made by the Spanish lay
brother Gonsalves. The works written in the Tamil language by Father
Beschi († 1740) have received the most flattering criticism by modern
Protestant writers. The Anglican Bishop Caldwell, in his _Comparative
Grammar of the Dravidian Languages_ (London 1875), styles them the best
productions in modern Tamil, and other scholars, as Babington, Hunter,
Pope, and Benfey, concur in this eulogy.[300] Beschi’s grammar and
dictionary are praised as masterpieces. Father Stephens’ grammar of
the Konkani language is called an admirable achievement.[301] It was
republished as late as 1857, and was used extensively in the nineteenth
century.
Not less noteworthy were the labors of the Jesuits in the Chinese
language. In the fourth International Congress of Orientalists, Father
Matteo Ricci was called “the first Sinologue”.[302] When not long
ago the Protestant missionaries in Shanghai published an edition of
Euclid, they took as the basis of their work the translation made by
Ricci. His works were written in the best Chinese, and, according to
the eminent Orientalist Rémusat, were even in the nineteenth century
highly esteemed by Chinese scholars, for their elegance of diction and
purity of language.[303] Father Prémare († 1736) is called by Morrison
the most thorough and profound grammarian of the Chinese language.
And Rémusat asserts that the two Jesuits Prémare and Gaubil have not
been surpassed or equalled by any European in sound and comprehensive
knowledge of Chinese, and that both belong to the number of great
literary luminaries that form the pride of France.[304] Prémare’s
most important work, the _Notitia Linguae Sinicae_, was published in
1831, by the Protestant _Collegium Anglo-Sinicum_ in Malakka. Rémusat
styles this work the best ever produced by a European in the field of
Chinese grammar.[305] And a German scholar writes: “We possess no work
on Chinese grammar which, in comprehensive and judicious treatment of
the subject, can be compared to that of Prémare’s _Notitia_. Some may
acquire a better understanding of the Chinese language than the French
Father, but it may be said that not easily will any European so fully
and so thoroughly master the spirit and taste of the Chinese language;
nor will there soon be found an equally capable teacher of Chinese
rhetoric. In this I recognize the imperishable value of this work,
a value which in some quarters is recognized more in deeds than in
words.”[306] By the last remark the author seems to imply what another
German writer has stated more explicitly, namely, that “several of the
best works of these Jesuits have been published by another firm,”[307]
i. e., they have been largely used by other writers without receiving
the credit due to them. Other distinguished Chinese scholars were the
Fathers Noel, Gerbillon, Parrenin, de Maillac, and Amyot.[308]
Great praise has also been bestowed on works of Jesuit authors on
the languages of Japan, South America, etc.[309] Thus we read in the
_Narrative and Critical History of America_, by Justin Winsor: “The
most voluminous work on the language of the Incas has for its author
the Jesuit Diego Gonzales Holguin.... He resided for several years in
the Jesuit College at Juli, near the banks of Lake Titicaca, where
the Fathers had established a printing-press, and here he studied the
Quichua language.... He died as Rector of the College at Asuncion.
His Quichua dictionary was published at Lima in 1586, and a second
edition appeared in 1607, the same year in which the grammar first
saw the light. The Quichua grammar of Holguin is the most complete
and elaborate that has been written, and his dictionary is also the
best.”[310]--Similar commendations have been bestowed on the linguistic
works of the Fathers Rubio, de Acosta, Barzena, Bertonio, Bayer,
Febres (whose grammar and dictionary of the Auracanian dialect were
republished for practical use in 1882 and 1884 at Buenos Ayres and
Rio de Janeiro), Anchieta, Figueira, Ruiz, and others. Ruiz’ grammar
and dictionary of Guarani, in the words of Mulhall, are a lasting
monument to his study and learning.[311] Many most valuable books and
manuscripts of the Jesuits were ruthlessly destroyed, when the Fathers
were expelled from their colleges and missions in South America.
Protestant writers, as Bach and Kriegk, lament that this vandalism
of the enemies of the Society has destroyed for ever most valuable
literary treasures.
In the field of mathematics and natural sciences several Jesuit
professors have attained to high distinction. We mention the names of
a few. Clavius († 1610), who was called the “Euclid of his age”, was
the leading man in the reformation of the calendar under Pope Gregory
XIII. Professor Cajori says with reference to this work: “The Gregorian
calendar met with a great deal of opposition both among scientists and
among Protestants. Clavius, who ranked high as a geometer, met the
objections of the former most ably and effectively; the prejudices of
the latter passed away with time.”[312] One of his pupils was Gregory
of Saint-Vincent († 1667), whom Leibnitz places on an equality with
Descartes as a geometrician. “Although a circle-squarer, he is worthy
of mention for the numerous theorems of interest which he discovered in
his search after the impossible, and Montucla ingeniously remarks that
no one ever squared the circle with so much ability, or (except for his
principal object) with so much success.”[313]
Another disciple of Clavius was Matthew Ricci († 1610), the illustrious
mathematician and apostle of China, who published also a vast number
of valuable observations on the geography and history of China. Father
Schall of Cologne († 1669), a prominent mathematician and astronomer,
was appointed director of the “Mathematical Tribunal” in Pekin, and
revised the Chinese calendar.
Within the last few years the attention of mathematicians has been
drawn to the Jesuit Father Saccheri, Professor of mathematics at Pavia.
Non-Euclidean mathematics is now recognized as an important branch of
mathematics. The beginnings of this system have sometimes been ascribed
to Gauss, the “Nestor of German mathematicians”. But recent research
has proved that as early as 1733 Father Saccheri had published a book
which gives a complete system of Non-Euclidean geometry. Beltrami, in
1889, and Staeckel and Engel in 1895, pointed out the great importance
of the work of Saccheri.[314]
Father Grimaldi († 1663), professor of mathematics in the College at
Bologna, gave an accurate description of the moon spots, discovered
the diffraction of light, and, in his work _Physico-Mathesis de
Lumine, Coloribus et Iride_, advanced the first attempt of a theory of
undulation. This work was the basis of Newton’s theory of light.[315]
Father Scheiner († 1650) was one of the first observers of the sun
spots; it is disputed whether he or Galileo discovered them first.
Scheiner also invented the pantograph, and, in his work _Oculus,
hoc est Fundamentum Opticum_, laid down opinions of lasting value
(especially on the _accommodation of the eye_).[316]
More famous than these was Athanasius Kircher († 1680), a man
of most extensive and varied learning who wrote on mathematics,
physics, history, philology, and archaeology. He is the inventor
of the magic lantern and other scientific instruments. He was the
first who successfully studied the Coptic language and deciphered
the Egyptian hieroglyphics. The very variety and universality of
his learning was naturally a danger, to which he not unfrequently
succumbed. He often betrays a lack of critical spirit, and proposes
phantastic theories. Still, in spite of these defects, his works are
of the greatest importance, and his _Lingua Aegyptiaca Restituta_
has been styled indispensable even at the present day for the study
of the Egyptian language.[317] Father Kircher founded also the
famous _Museo Kircheriano_ in the Roman College, and if he had done
nothing else, this alone would secure him a place of honor in the
world of science. The services rendered to mathematics, astronomy,
physics, and geography, by the Jesuits in China, especially by Ricci,
Schall, Verbiest, Koegler, Hallerstein, Herdtrich, Gaubil, have been
generously acknowledged by Lalande, Montucla, and more recently by the
Protestant scholars Mädler,[318] and Baron von Richthofen.[319] On the
astronomical observatories of the Jesuits a few words will be said when
we come to speak of the suppression of the Order.
Of the geographical works of the Jesuits in China Baron von Richthofen
writes: “If the Jesuits had not applied their scientifically
trained minds to practical subjects, we would not possess the great
cartographic work on China, and that country would still be a _terra
incognita_ for us, and the time would be very far off in which it would
become possible to obtain as much as that picture of China which the
Jesuits have given us, and which is now well known to everybody....
It is the most important cartographic work ever executed in so short
a time, the grandest scientific achievement of the most brilliant
period of Catholic missions in China.” The same author says of the
Tyrolese Father Martini († 1661): “He is the best geographer of all
the missionaries, and by his great work, the _Novus Atlas Sinensis_,
the best and most complete description which we possess of China, he
has become the ‘Father of Chinese geography.’” Father Du Halde gave an
accurate description of Mongolia, and his great work on China (1735)
is still one of the most important sources available on the geography,
history, religion, industry, political organization, customs, etc.,
of that country.[320] Some of the geographical labors of the Jesuits
in America have been mentioned previously.[321] Justin Winsor states
that the _Historia Natural y Moral de las Indias_ of Father de Acosta,
“the Pliny of the New World,” is much relied on as an authority by
Robertson, and quoted 19 times by Prescott in his _Conquest of Peru_,
thus taking the fourth place as an authority with regard to that
work.[322]
All these works are as many testimonies to the efficiency and the
_practical_ character of the system under which these men had been
trained; most of them had entered the Society at a very early age. How
could they have produced such works, if what Compayré says, were true,
that the Society devotes itself exclusively to “purely formal studies,
to exercises which give a training in the use of elegant language, and
leaves real and concrete studies in entire neglect”?[323]
In history the Society must yield the palm to the Order of St.
Benedict, particularly to the celebrated Congregation of St. Maur.
Still, some Jesuits produced works of lasting value. We mention first
the _De Doctrina Temporum_ by Father Petavius († 1652), of which
a great authority on chronology said that it was superior to the
work of Scaliger, and an invaluable mine of information for later
chronologists.[324] Father Labbe († 1667) began the _Collection
of the Councils_ which is much used up to the present day. A more
complete Collection of the Councils, in fact the most complete that
exists, was published by Father Hardouin († 1729). He wrote also a
most valuable work on numismatics, in which six hundred ancient coins
were, for the first time, described and with wonderful sagacity used
for solving intricate historical problems. In other historical and
critical works he proceeded with an almost incredible boldness and
arbitrariness, denying the authenticity of a great number of the
works of the classical writers and the Fathers of the Church. In many
questions of criticism he was far in advance of his age, but some of
his hyper-critical and eccentric hypotheses have, to a great extent,
obscured his reputation.[325] The greatest historical work of the
Jesuits is the collection of documents called _Acta Sanctorum_, or
the _Bollandists_, so named after the first editor, Father Bolland (†
1668). The most distinguished of the Bollandist writers was Father
Papenbroeck († 1714). Fifty-three folio volumes appeared before the
suppression of the Society. This gigantic collection is a work of prime
importance for the history of the whole Christian era, a _monumentum
aere perennius_. Leibnitz said of it: “If the Jesuits had produced
nothing but this work, they would have deserved to be brought into
existence, and would have just claims upon the good wishes and esteem
of the whole world.”[326]
In literature we find the names of several distinguished Jesuits. The
odes of Matthew Sarbiewski († 1640) were praised as successful rivals
of the best lyrics of the ancients; Hugo Grotius even preferred them
to the odes of Horace,[327] although we must call this an exaggerated
estimate. Sarbiewski was surpassed by James Balde († 1668), who for
many years taught rhetoric in Ingolstadt and Munich, and was styled not
only the “Modern Quintilian”, but also the “Horace of Germany”. His
Latin poems manifest a variety, beauty, warmth of feeling, and glowing
patriotism unrivalled in that period. He was, however, not altogether
free from the mannerisms of his age. Protestant critics, as Goethe
and others, have admired the productions of this highly gifted poet,
and Herder,[328] who translated a selection of Balde’s lyrics into
classical German, speaks of him in enthusiastic terms.[329]
The classical German writings of Denis and Spe have been mentioned
previously. We may add here the name of Father Robert Southwell, who
was executed for his faith in 1595. Saintsbury says of him that he
belonged to a distinguished family, was stolen by a gipsy in youth,
but was recovered; “a much worse misfortune befell him in being sent
for education not to Oxford or Cambridge but to Douay, where he
fell into the hands of the Jesuits, and joined their order.”[330]
Yet notwithstanding this terrible misfortune, he must have greatly
profited from this education; for the same critic admits that Southwell
produced not inconsiderable work both in prose and poetry; that his
works possess genuine poetic worth; that his religious fervor is of the
simplest and most genuine kind, and that his poems are a natural and
unforced expression of it.
Father Perpinian wrote most eloquent Latin discourses, which,
as the philologian Ruhnken affirms, compare favorably with those
of Muretus, the greatest Neo-Latinist. The philological works of
Pontanus, Vernulaeus, La Cerda (the famous commentator of the works
of Virgil), and others, were held in high repute. Sacchini, Jouvancy,
Perpinian, Possevin, Bonifacio, and Kropf wrote valuable treatises on
education.[331]
We have purposely abstained from mentioning any writer on theology or
scholastic philosophy. For it is admitted on all sides that the Society
produced a great number of most distinguished writers in scholastic
philosophy and in the various branches of theology: dogmatics,
apologetics, exegesis, moral theology, etc.
Many good schoolbooks were written by Jesuits.[332] The number of
grammars, readers, books on style, on poetics, rhetoric, editions of
classics, etc., is very great. De la Cerda published one of the best
editions of Virgil. The editions of La Rue (Ruaeus) were famous; of
course, they are not what we _now_ consider standard works on the
classics. Father Tursellini’s book _De Particulis Linguae Latinae_
appeared in fifty editions; the last edition was prepared by Professor
Hand, the philologist of Jena. The celebrated Gottfried Hermann, of
Leipsic, published a revised edition of Father Viger’s _De Idiotismis
Linguae Graecae_.[333] This is an honor which not many old books have
received at the hand of German scholars, who boast of such achievements
in the field of philology. It is needless to add that the two works
of the Jesuit philologians thus singled out must be of considerable
excellence.
One department of the activity of the Order deserves a more detailed
treatment: the Jesuit school-drama.[334] At present there is no need of
defending the usefulness of dramatic performances, given by students,
provided the subject and the whole tone of the play are morally sound
and elevating. Still, there were times, when the Jesuits had to defend
their practice, especially against the rigorists of Port Royal, the
Jansenists in general, and in the eighteenth century against several
governments, which were swayed by a prosaic bureaucratic spirit of
utilitarianism.[335] The principles according to which the drama in
Jesuit schools was to be conducted are laid down by Jouvancy in his
_Ratio Docendi_, and by Father Masen; a book on the technique of the
drama was composed by Father Lang.[336] The Institute of the Society
had taken precautions that the school dramas should neither interfere
with the regular work, nor do the least harm to the morals of the
pupils. The fifty-eighth rule of the Provincial reads: “He shall only
rarely allow the performance of comedies and tragedies; they must be
becoming[337] and written in Latin.” The vast majority of plays were
consequently given in Latin,--the language, in those times, understood
by every man of culture. Many Protestant educators and preachers were
altogether opposed to dramas in the vernacular “which, as they said,
were good enough for the common people and apprentices, but unbecoming
students.” In Jesuit colleges plays were occasionally, and after 1700
more frequently, performed in the vernacular.[338] Of Latin plays a
programme and synopsis in the vernacular was, at least in Germany,
distributed amongst those who did not know Latin.
In many Protestant schools of this period, for instance in the
celebrated schools of Sturm and Rollenhagen, and also in a few
Catholic schools, the comedies of Plautus and Terence were exhibited,
not, however, without strong opposition of earnest men, who rightly
considered some of these plays as dangerous for young people. Von
Raumer says: “It seems incredible that the learning by heart and acting
of comedies, so lascivious as those of Terence, could have remained
without evil influence on the morality of youth, and we find it
unintelligible that a religious-minded man like Sturm did not consider
Terence really seductive. If the mere reading of an author like Terence
is risky, how much more risky must it be, if pupils perform such pieces
and have to familiarize themselves altogether with the persons and
situations.”[339] No wonder that serious complaints were made against
such pernicious practices.[340] The biblical and historical plays
performed in Protestant schools were mostly directed against “Popish
idolatry”.[341]
The drama of the Jesuits stood in sharp contrast to that of the
Protestants. As their whole literary education, so also their drama
was subordinate to the religious and moral training. The Ratio
Studiorum prohibited the reading of any classical books which contained
obscenities; they had first to be expurgated; expressly mentioned were
Terence and Plautus. This must reflect most favorably on the Jesuits,
in a time when vulgarity and obscenity reigned supreme in literature
and drama.
As the nature and function of the theatre the Jesuits considered the
stirring up of the pious emotions, the guardianship of youth against
the corrupting influence of evil society, the portrayal of vice as
something intrinsically despicable, the rousing up of the inner man to
a zealous crusade for virtue, and the imitation of the Saints. Even
in the treatment of purely secular subjects, the plot was always of
a spiritually serious, deeply tragic, and morally important nature.
The aim of the comic drama was to strike at the puerilities and
ineptitudes, which could be treated on the stage without any detriment
to the moral conscience. Vulgar jokes and low comedy were once and
for all excluded, and the Jesuit authorities were indefatigable in
thus guarding the moral prestige of the plays. In general, only such
plays were written and produced as were in harmony with the moral ends
and moral limits of dramatic art itself: a meritorious achievement in
an age when every sentiment of moral delicacy, every prescription of
social decorum, every dictate of ordinary modesty--both in the school
and on the stage--was being outraged. And this fact produced a healthy
reaction in favor of all the fine arts in general. The intermittent
efforts of Jesuit dramatists could not, it is true, completely stem the
tide of public degeneracy, could not even remain altogether unscathed
by the time-serving fashions and foibles of the age: from the grosser
and more revolting aberrations they were happily preserved.[342]
The subjects of Jesuit dramas were frequently biblical or allegorical:
as “The Prodigal Son” (Heiligenstadt 1582), “Joseph in Egypt” (Munich
1583), “Christ as Judge”, “Saul and David” (Graz 1589-1600), “Naboth”
(Ratisbon 1609), “Elias” (Prague 1610). Or historical subjects were
chosen: “Julian the Apostate” (Ingolstadt 1608), “Belisarius” (Munich
1607), “Godfrey de Bouillon” (Munich 1596), “St. Ambrose”, “St. Benno”,
“St. Henry the Emperor”, etc.[343] Favorite subjects were the lives of
the Saints with their rich, beautiful, touching and morally ennobling
elements, and the Christian legends. In these the Catholic Church has
preserved, as Professor Paulsen aptly remarks, a poetical treasure
which in many respects surpasses the stories of the Old Testament, both
in purity and dramatic applicability.[344]
Many of their dramas were exhibited with all possible splendor, as
for instance those given at La Flèche in 1614 before Louis XIII.
and his court.[345] But it seems that nowhere was greater pomp
displayed than in Munich, where the Court liberally contributed to
make the performances as brilliant as possible. In 1574 the tragedy
“Constantine” was played on two successive days. The whole city was
beautifully decorated. More than one thousand persons took part in the
play. Constantine, after his victory over Maxentius, entered the city
on a triumphal chariot, surrounded by 400 horsemen in glittering armor.
At the performance of the tragedy “Esther” in 1577, the most splendid
costumes, gems, etc. were furnished from the treasury of the duke; at
the banquet of King Assuerus 160 precious dishes of gold and silver
were used.[346]
We may now understand the following assertions of a German writer.
“The Jesuits, as Richard Wagner in our own days, aimed at and succeeded
in uniting all the arts within the compass of the drama. The effects
of such dramas were, like those of the Oberammergau Passion Play,
ravishing, overpowering. Even people ignorant of the Latin tongue were
transported by the representations of subjects usually familiar to
them, as at present no one travels to the village of Ammergau to be
edified by the poetic beauties of the _text_. And no one can deny that
the liturgy of the Catholic Church makes a deep impression, even on the
uncultured, although the Latin language is unknown to them. It is in
the first place the power of _what is seen_ that affects the mind so
forcibly.”[347]
The concourse of people was often immense. In 1565 “Judith” was played
before the court in Munich, and then repeated before the people on a
public square; not only was the whole square densely crowded, but even
the surrounding walls and the roofs of the houses were thickly filled
with eager spectators. In 1560 the comedy “Euripus” was given in the
court-yard of the College of Prague before a crowd of more than 8000
people. The play had to be repeated three times, and when further
exhibitions were demanded, the Rector of the college urgently requested
the petitioners to desist from such demands, as “after all it was not
the task of the Society to exhibit comedies.”
Catholic writers of the time speak enthusiastically of the salutary
effects of such performances. “They do more good than a sermon”, writes
the Italian physician Guarinoni, who saw many Jesuit dramas at Hall
in Tyrol. At Munich, on one occasion, in 1609, the impression of a
play--it was “Cenodoxus, the Doctor of Paris”, (or the “Conversion
of St. Bruno”)--was overpowering. A spectator wrote that a hundred
sermons could not have produced the same effect; fourteen of the
foremost members of the Bavarian court, on the following day, withdrew
themselves into solitude, to enter upon the “Spiritual Exercises” of
St. Ignatius, and to change their manner of life.[348]
Protestant preachers lamented that “high personages, princes and
counts, no less than townspeople and rustics take such delight in
the dramas of the Jesuits, contribute money to them, and honor the
actors, whereas ours have nothing of the kind. Thus the Jesuits have
an opportunity of propagating their idolatry and of gaining the good
will even of the Evangelicals.”[349] This result would certainly have
been impossible, if the Jesuit dramas had contained invectives against
non-Catholics. They were free from insulting and abusive attacks with
which those of the other side were teeming. This is established by
the standard authors on this subject, Karl von Reinhardstöttner, and
Holstein. The latter, speaking with offensive and bitter language of
the Jesuit dramas as means of defending “idolatry”, must admit that
their object was exclusively pedagogical, not at all polemical. Another
Protestant, Francke, states as the difference between Protestant and
Catholic school dramas, that the former sank more and more to a mere
form for political and ecclesiastical controversies, chiefly directed
against Popery, whereas the Jesuits were working quietly in their
schools and performed their biblical and historical plays.[350]
That not all dramatic productions of the Jesuits were of very inferior
quality may again be inferred from testimonies of competent Protestant
critics. K. von Reinhardstöttner writes: “In the first century of their
history the Jesuits did great work in this line. They performed dramas
full of power and grandeur and although their dramatic productions did
not equal the fine lyrics of (the Jesuits) Balde and Sarbiewski, still
in the dramas of Fabricius, Agricola and others there is unmistakably
poetic spirit and noble seriousness. How could the enormous success
of their performances be otherwise explained?... Who could doubt for
a moment that the Jesuits by their dramas rendered great services to
their century, that they advanced culture, and preserved taste for
the theatre and its subsidiary arts? It would be sheer ingratitude to
undervalue what they have effected by their drama.”[351]
We have testimonies proving that not only in the first century of its
existence did the Order produce good plays, but that it kept up a high
standard to the very end. One witness is Goethe, the first of German
writers, assuredly no mean critic in dramatic matters. He was present
at a play given in 1786 at Ratisbon, where the traditions of the Jesuit
schools were kept up after the suppression of the Order. He bestows
high praise on the performance and on the skill with which the Jesuits
knew how to make the various arts subservient to their dramatics.[352]
If the number of great men be taken as a just criterion of the merit
of an educational system, the Society could exhibit a long roll of
pupils, who in their after-life were among the most prominent men in
European history: poets like Calderon, Tasso, Corneille, Molière,
Fontenelle, Goldoni; orators like Bossuet; scholars like Galileo,
Descartes, Buffon, Justus Lipsius, Vico, Muratori, Montesquieu,
Malesherbes; statesmen like Richelieu and Emperor Ferdinand; generals
like Tilly, Wallenstein and Condé; Church dignitaries like the great
St. Francis de Sales, Pope Benedict XIV, called “the most learned of
the Popes.” These are but a few of the host of Jesuit pupils who rose
to the highest distinction in Church and State, or in the domain of
science and literature.[353] However, the Society does not lay much
stress on the fact of having educated these brilliant men. It might
be said with Count de Maistre, that “Genius is not the production of
schools; it is not acquired but innate; it recognizes no obligation
to man; its gratitude is due to the creative power of God.” Still,
a system of education may contribute much to foster and quicken the
development of genius. But the Society can justly claim to have made
excellent men of pupils with only ordinary abilities, and these count
by thousands, nay by hundreds of thousands: lawyers, professors, state
officials, officers of the army, priests and bishops.
Considering the number and work of the Jesuit schools, we may
conclude that they wielded a very great influence in the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries. This influence led to the persecution and
finally the suppression of the Order; not as if the Order had abused
its influence, but because the power which the Society exercised in the
intellectual and moral world, was an eye-sore to the numerous enemies
of the Jesuits. At last, after the middle of the seventeenth century,
the hated Order fell a victim to the intrigues of its opponents.
We cannot here enter on a lengthy account of the history of the
destruction of the Society, but must refer the reader to special works
on this subject.[354] Suffice it to mention briefly the opinions of a
few impartial witnesses.
Prince Hohenlohe wrote at the time of the suppression that the
destruction of the Order was “_une cabale infernale_.”[355] Theiner,
who was a bitter enemy of the Society, calls the suppression a
“disgraceful warfare, a deplorable drama, in which too many impure
elements played a leading part.”[356] Many prominent Protestant
historians, as Ranke, Schoell, J. v. Müller, Sismondi, Leo, declare the
charges brought against the Society as calumnies of its enemies, and
maintain that the suppression of the Order was not due to any crimes
of the Jesuits, but entirely to the tyrannical violence of ministers
of State.[357] In Portugal it was Pombal who aimed at separating
his country from Rome and introducing infidelity; the Jesuits, for
their unflinching loyalty to the Papacy and the staunch defence
of revealed religion, were to be the first victims. Pombal hired
pamphleteers to calumniate them systematically. Spain and France at
the same time began to persecute the Society. In the latter country
the Jansenists and Huguenots had always borne a deadly hatred to the
Order. The names of the chief enemies of the Jesuits show clearly, in
what direction the warfare against them tended: the Duke of Choiseul,
the ill-famed Madame de Pompadour, Voltaire, d’Alembert and other
French infidel philosophers. They had always regarded the Jesuits
as the most formidable and dangerous enemies of their revolutionary
designs. Voltaire wrote to Helvetius, in 1761, in a tone of exultant
anticipation: “Once we have destroyed the Jesuits, that ‘infamous
thing’ (the Christian religion) will be only child’s play for us.”[358]
However, he could not and would not calumniate the hated Order in
the style of others: “While doing my very best to realize the motto:
_Écrasez l’infâme_, I will not stoop to the meanness of defaming the
Jesuits. The best years of my life have been spent in the schools of
the Jesuits, and while there I have never listened to any teaching
but what was good, or seen any conduct but what was exemplary.”[359]
Neither could J. J. Rousseau be induced to lend his pen to decry the
Society, although he confessed that he did not like the Jesuits.
Pope Clement XIV. at last yielded to the threats of the ministers of
the Bourbon kings, and in 1773, by a Brief he suppressed the Society,
“in order to preserve peace.” “This letter”, says a Protestant
historian, “condemns neither the doctrine, nor the morals, of the
Jesuits. The complaints of the courts against the Order are the
only motives alleged for its suppression.”[360] When recently Sir
Henry Howorth represented this Brief as an infallible _ex-cathedra_
pronouncement of the Pope, he thereby showed that he has not even
the most elementary notion of what is meant by Papal infallibility.
Succeeding events proved that--to use the words of one of the enemies
of the Jesuits--a peace treaty was struck between the wolves and the
shepherd, and that the latter had sacrificed the best watch-dogs of the
flock. The dreadful French Revolution opened the eyes of many to the
real purport of the persecutions of the Jesuits. True, the Church is
not built on the Society, but on the rock of Peter. Still the Church
suffered immensely by this sacrifice of its most zealous defenders,
and well might Pope Pius VII., in the Bull of the Restoration of the
Society in 1814, speak of the “dispersion of the very stones of the
sanctuary,” which had followed the destruction of the Society and the
consequent calamities.
It was at this juncture that a Protestant and a Schismatical court
rendered homage to the services of the Jesuits, and gave a brilliant
testimony to their educational abilities. Frederick the Great, King
of Prussia, being determined to preserve them in his kingdom,[361]
wrote to Abbé Columbini, his agent at Rome, a letter dated from
Potsdam, September 13, 1773, in which the following passage occurs:
“I am determined that in my kingdom the Jesuits shall continue to
exist and maintain their ancient form. In the treaty of Breslau I
guaranteed the _status quo_ of the Catholic religion; nor have I ever
seen better priests, from any point of view, than the Jesuits. You
may add that since I belong to a heretical sect, His Holiness holds
no power to dispense me from the obligation of keeping my word, or
from my duty as a king and an honest man.”[362] On May 15th, 1774,
writing to d’Alembert, who was dissatisfied that the Jesuits were not
completely exterminated, and feared that other kings moved by the
example of Prussia might demand of Frederick seed to cultivate in
their own kingdoms, he replied: “I view them only as men of letters,
whose place in the instruction of youth it would be difficult, if not
impossible, to supply. Of the Catholic clergy of this country they
alone apply themselves to literature. This renders them so useful
and necessary that you need not fear any one shall obtain from me a
single Jesuit.” In 1770 he had written in similar terms to Voltaire.
Speaking of Pope Clement XIV., he says: “For my own part I have no
reason to complain of him; he leaves me my dear Jesuits, whom they are
persecuting everywhere. I will save the precious seed, for those who
should wish to cultivate a plant so rare.”[363] On May 15th, 1775, he
wrote to d’Alembert: “In their misfortune I see in them nothing but
scholars whose place in the education of youth can hardly be supplied
by others.” Again on Aug. 5, 1775: “For the good Jesuit Fathers I have
a d-- tenderness, not as far as they are monks but as educators and
scholars, whose services are useful to civil society.” Now, if the
Jesuits were dangerous to the welfare of the state, as their enemies
make them, how strange that the Atheist on the Prussian throne, the
shrewdest and most keen-sighted monarch of his time, should have failed
to see it? But he was not the man to let himself be influenced by silly
prejudices.
The second ruler of Europe who endeavored to protect the Society was
Catharine II., Empress of Russia.[364] In 1783 she wrote to Pope Pius
VI. “that she was resolved to maintain these priests for the welfare
of her states against any power, whatsoever it was.” In the same year
the Russian court in a note to Mgr. Archetti, Papal Nuncio to Poland,
thus expressed its sentiments on the Jesuits: “The Roman Catholics of
the Russian Empire, having given unequivocal proofs of their loyalty
to the Empress, have thereby acquired a right to the confirmation of
their former privileges. Of this number is the instruction of youth,
which has heretofore been committed to the Jesuits. The zeal animating
these religious, and the success crowning their efforts, have been
marked by the Imperial Government with the utmost satisfaction. Would
it be just to deprive the inhabitants of White Russia of this precious
Institution? In other countries where the Order was suppressed, no
substitutes have been found. And why single out for destruction, among
the many religious orders, that which devotes itself to the education
of youth, and consequently to the public welfare?”[365]
These testimonies refute also a charge sometimes made even by Catholic
writers. Theiner, for instance, asserts or implies that, for a space of
time preceding the suppression, the Society had fallen away from the
station it had held originally in literary and educational matters,
that their system had become useless to the interests of science,
that education suffered in their hands, that youth issued from their
colleges unprotected against the assaults of error, etc.[366] These
charges are ably refuted by Abbé Maynard in his work just quoted:
_The Studies and Teaching of the Society of Jesus at the Time of its
Suppression 1750-73_. But as we said, the appreciation of the Jesuits’
educational labors, as shown by Frederick II. and Catharine II.,
exonerates them completely. These two were the most sagacious monarchs
of Europe at the time, and what could have influenced them, atheists as
they were, to show such favors to the persecuted Society, had it not
been its superiority as an educating body? All attempts to weaken the
testimonies of the words and actions of these two rulers have proved
unsuccessful.[367]
Besides, Maynard points out in detail that the Jesuits at that time
had among their number _hundreds_ of able writers in all branches
of learning. The Society could boast of great mathematicians
and scientists, as the famous Roger Boscovich († 1787), who was
despatched by the Royal Society of London to California to observe
the second transit of Venus. During the heat of the French Revolution
the French astronomer Lalande, who took pride in the title “the
atheist astronomer”, ventured to write Father Boscovich’s eulogy in
the “_Journal of Men of Science_” (February 1792). Then there was
Maximilian Hell († 1792), for thirty-six years director of the Imperial
Observatory at Vienna. In 1768 he was invited by Christian VII.,
King of Denmark, to observe in Lapland the transit of Venus. Of the
result of Father Hell’s expedition Lalande wrote: “This was one of
the five complete observations made at great distances apart.”[368]
Father Hell was a worthy successor to the great Jesuit astronomers and
mathematicians Clavius, Kircher, Riccioli, Scheiner, Grimaldi, and a
precursor of the famous Father Secchi, one of the greatest astronomers,
at least in spectroscopy, of the nineteenth century.
Lalande, in his _Bibliographie Astronomique_, enumerates forty-five
Jesuit astronomers and eighty-nine astronomical publications for the
short period of 1750-1773. The same author, in the continuation of
Montucla’s _History of Mathematics_, pays the following tribute to
the Society: “Here I must remark to the honor of this learned and
cruelly persecuted Society, that in several colleges it possessed
observatories, for instance in Marseilles, Avignon, Lyons, etc.” There
were other observatories in Rome, Florence, Milan, in fact in every
country where Jesuits had colleges. Of Germany and Austria, Lalande
remarks: “There were in Germany and the neighboring countries few large
colleges of the Society which had no observatory.” He mentions those of
Vienna, Tyrnau, Ingolstadt, Graz, Breslau, Olmütz, Prague, etc., and
speaks highly of the scientific work done by the Jesuit astronomers. He
adds that after the “deplorable catastrophe of the Society,” most of
these observatories shared the fate of the Order.[369]
Quite recently Professor Günther of Munich[370] called attention
to the important scientific works of three Jesuits of that period,
three relatives of the name Zallinger: John Baptist, Professor in
the Jesuit college at Innsbruck, who wrote a remarkable treatise on
the growth of plants; James Anton, Professor in Munich, Dillingen,
Innsbruck, and Augsburg, a zealous defender of the Newtonian system,
who “published works of such importance that it is surprising that
they could have been buried in oblivion.” The greatest of the three
was Francis Zallinger, who published several important works with new
views, which partly are held at present, on electricity, meteorology,
mechanics, and with particular success on hydrology. Professor Günther
repeatedly expresses his astonishment that such works could have been
so completely ignored, that no modern work on the history of sciences
does justice to them. Very few mention the names of these writers. We
may be convinced that careful research will bring to light many more
distinguished Jesuit scientists of that period.
Also in literature, shortly before the suppression, the Jesuits had
among their numbers distinguished writers. Father Tiraboschi († 1794)
wrote the _History of Italian Literature_, in thirteen volumes, up to
this day one of the most valuable works on this subject. In France,
men like Father Porée and many others were admired even by Voltaire
for their literary accomplishments. In Germany, the Jesuit Denis (†
1800) rendered the so-called poems of Ossian into his native tongue,
and this with such success as to win the highest praise from Goethe.
About this time Father Hervas began to write his great “_Catalogue of
languages_”, of which we spoke before. But as we are not writing a
literary history of the Society, it is enough to have mentioned these
few names. A host of other distinguished men, who flourished towards
the end of the seventeenth century, may be found in Abbé Maynard’s
work. Thus the assertion that the Society had become useless to science
and literature, is a pure calumny.
As groundless is the charge that the Jesuits had failed in their lofty
mission with respect to teaching. We have heard what Frederick II. and
Catharine II. thought of them. Most of the celebrated writers mentioned
before were engaged as teachers in the collegiate or university
establishments of the Order. A cloud of witnesses stands forth to
testify that the work of education was carried on with unabated zeal
and with great success, not only in languages and literature, but also
in mathematics and sciences. Thus Deslandes, commissary of the navy
at Brest, testified, in 1748, that the Jesuits had furnished the navy
excellent professors of mathematics.[371]
It may be well to quote what the historian of the University of
Paris has to say about the educational labors of the Society in France
up to the time of its suppression: “If one rises above prejudices
and narrow professional jealousies, how can one deny the eminent
services which the Society rendered to youth and the family, from its
reestablishment under Henry IV.? Those of its enemies who want to be
impartial and sincere admit that its colleges were well conducted, that
the discipline was at once firm and mild, strict and paternal; that the
scholastic routine was improved by wise innovations, cleverly adapted
to the progress in manners and social demands; that the teachers
were unassuming, devoted to their work, well instructed, and for the
greater part masters in the art of elevating youth; some were perfect
humanists, others, scientists of the first rank, so regular in their
lives that never has any reproach of misdemeanor been uttered against
them. Should one say that, in spite of showy appearances, the education
given by the Jesuits lacked solidity, that they too often substituted
frivolous practices or worldly exercises for serious work,--a charge
frequently made by the University--the Jesuits could answer by pointing
to their pupils who held honorable positions in the domain of science
and literature, at the court and in the armies, in the ranks of the
_bourgeoisie_ and among the nobility.... As instructors of youth, the
Jesuits were above reproach, and more worthy of recommendation than
of persecution.... We do not inquire whether in other rôles played by
the disciples of St. Ignatius, they did not allow themselves to be
carried away to excesses of pride, ambition, and intolerance, which
necessarily brought upon them cruel retaliation; in connection with our
subject, suffice it to state that in the field of studies and public
education, their activity was, in general, beneficial. The inexorable
sentence which suddenly destroyed their colleges is explained, from the
historical point of view, by the prejudices and the hatred existing
against the Society. But after having related the biased acclamations
of contemporaries, must this sentence, so sadly renowned, be confirmed
by the equitable judgment of history? We think not; for it is against
truth and justice in many regards, and, as the events that followed
have proved, it served neither the Church, nor the State, nor even the
University, in spite of the hopes which the latter had based on the
ruin of its adversaries.”[372] The author, in the chapter following,
then describes the fatal consequences for education in France,
resulting from the destruction of the Society.
This much is certain that it was not its inability, but, on the
contrary, its great success for which the Society was doomed by the
Catos of the eighteenth century, whose _ceterum censeo_ was that the
hated Order was to be destroyed. What the Jesuits had been doing for
education and learning became apparent after the destruction of their
Order, and it was openly declared by many that the ruin of the Society
was followed by a fatal decline of learning among the Catholics. The
Bishops of France represented to the King, that “the dispersion of
the Jesuits had left a lamentable void in the functions of the sacred
ministry and the education of youth, to which they consecrated their
talents and their labors.”[373] In 1803 Abbé Emery wrote: “The Jesuits
have been expelled, their system of teaching has been rejected. But
what substitutes for them have we discovered, and in what have the new
theories resulted? Are the youth better instructed, or their morals
purer? Their presumptuous ignorance and depravity force us to sigh for
the old masters and the old ways.”[374]
About the same time Chateaubriand in his famous work, _The Genius
of Christianity_, exclaimed: “In the destruction of the Jesuits
learned Europe has suffered an irreparable loss. Since that unhappy
event education has never been in a state of prosperity.” And in his
_Mélanges_ he expresses himself to the same effect: “The Jesuits
maintained and were increasing their reputation to the last moment
of their existence. Their destruction has inflicted a deadly wound
on education and letters: as to this, at the present time, there is
no diversity of opinion.” And even Theiner does not hesitate to say
that “the wound inflicted on education was incurable.”[375] In Lord
Stanhope’s conversation with the great Duke of Wellington we find a
striking passage on the same subject. Speaking at Walmer in October
1833, the Duke said to Lord Mahon: “On the whole I think it is very
doubtful whether, since the suppression of the Jesuits, the system of
education has been as good, or whether as remarkable men have appeared.
I am quite sure that they have not in the south of Europe. It was a
great mistake.”[376] In Treves the Jesuits possessed, besides the
novitiate and the university, a flourishing college. When the news of
the suppression of the Society arrived, the Archbishop Elector, Clement
Wenceslaus of Poland, is said to have exclaimed: “_Cecidit corona
capitis nostri_”--“The crown of our head is fallen;”[377] and, as the
historian of the Royal Gymnasium of Treves adds, his outcry of sorrow
was justified. A few years after the Jesuits had left the college, the
pernicious leaven of French infidelity had permeated the faculty and
was undermining the faith of the young.
And such was the case everywhere. German scepticism, French atheism,
Jansenism, and Josephism began to reign supreme. Let us add here that
the Protestant cause was never strengthened by any persecution of the
Society; the only gainer was always infidelity. The statement of Mr.
Browning, that the governments on the whole have done well to suppress
the Jesuit colleges,[378] is proved utterly false by history. At the
same time it advocates an intolerable state absolutism. If parents wish
to send their children to the schools of the Jesuits, and of religious
in general, it is a violation of parental rights, and an infringement
of religious and political liberty, to make the attainment of such
wishes impossible. In the light of this consideration, the legislation
of M. Waldeck-Rousseau, and the recent proceedings against the teaching
congregations in France must appear to all fair-minded men as tyranny
and a new “reign of terror”.
To all students of history who are not blinded by fanatical hatred,
the downfall of such a society of men who had devoted their lives to
the propagation of religion and the advancement of science, must appear
most pathetic. Such it appeared to the atheist astronomer Lalande.
“The mention of a Jesuit,” he writes, “awakens all the feelings of my
heart, my mind and my gratitude. It harrows all my sore feelings at the
blindness of the ministers of 1762. Mankind has irretrievably lost, and
will never recover, that precious and surprising union of twenty-two
thousand individuals, devoted incessantly and disinterestedly to the
functions of teaching, preaching, missions, to duties most serviceable
and dearest to humanity. Retirement, frugality, and the renunciation
of pleasure, constituted in that Society the most harmonious concord
of science and virtue. I had personal knowledge of them: they were an
assemblage of heroes for religion and humanity.”[379]
We close this chapter with the following sympathetic lines of a recent
writer: “The rise of the Jesuits had been astonishing. Their fall was
august. Annihilation could not shake their constancy. No tempests of
misfortune could attaint their magnificent obedience. Defamation,
incarceration, banishment, starvation, death, unthankfulness, fell
upon them, and could not alter, and could not dismay. To the cabals
of courtiers and the frenzy of kings, to the laugh of triumphing
harlots, and the rebuke of solemn hypocrites, to the loud-voiced joy
of the heretic and the unbeliever, to the poisonous sneer of banded
sectaries, exulting in their secret confederation, to the gibes of
traitors, to the burning sympathies of unpurchased and unpurchasable
multitudes, the only response of the Jesuits was superb and indomitable
duty. Girt round by cruelty and frivolity, more cruel still; as in the
centre of a vast amphitheatre of the antique which they had taught
so well, they remained as high resolved, as unflinching as Sebastian
before the archers of the Palatine, or the virgin Blandina amid the
beasts at Lyons. It was hardly a marvel that the victorious monarch
of Prussia, outside the Church though he was, but accustomed to see
men die at the call of honor and discipline, half owned a thrill of
warrior emotion, and paid a captain’s salutation, to that infrangible,
that devoted army. _The Jesuits were not only the ablest of Renaissance
schoolmasters_, they were great priests, great missionaries, great
civilizers, great practicians of the supreme art of persuading and
leading men. And the sentence of destruction smote them in the
midst of their activity, in a hundred regions where they had become
indispensable or almost impossible to replace.... Never was such a
famous company of scholars in all the records of former civilizations,
deep-read in philosophies; famous for sacred eloquence; masters
of languages, editors of the lore of antiquity, of the writers of
Byzantium, of the obscure dialects of Malaysia and the Upper Amazon;
historians, philologists, restorers of chronology.... To gain the
lying promise of a lying peace, they were demanded as a holocaust to
the licentious puppets on the thrones of the Bourbons, to the dark
powers behind the veils of the lodge. And their loss to civilization,
their loss to France, was not to be computed even by the largest
enumeration of what they had done, and what they were capable of doing.
The Christendom to which they had become so necessary, and which in an
hour was forced to do without them, was yet to learn the unspeakable
significance of such a deprivation. In proportion to the services
of the Jesuits was the void of their disappearance, the calamity of
their fall. When main pillars of an edifice are shattered, more may be
shattered than the pillars alone.”[380]
FOOTNOTES:
[279] See Hughes, _Loyola_, pp. 69-77; and especially Hamy, S. J.,
_Documents pour servir à l’histoire des domiciles de la Compagnie de
Jésus_, Paris, Alphonse Picard.
[280] Du Lac, _Jésuites_, p. 297.
[281] _Advancement of Learning_, book 1.
[282] _History of the United States_, vol. III, page 120 (18th edition,
Boston 1864).
[283] _History of the Papacy_, vol. I, book V, sect. 8 (Ed. London
1896, p. 416).
[284] Döllinger, _Die Reformation_, vol. I, p. 447 (note 55).
[285] Döllinger, _l. c._, p. 543.
[286] _Ib._, pp. 544-545.
[287] Further testimonies see Janssen, vol. IV (16th ed.), pp. 473-476;
vol. VII, pp. 80-82.
[288] Janssen, vol. VIII, p. 650.
[289] _Bibliothèque de la Compagnie de Jésus_, par Carlos Sommervogel.
Brussels, 1890-1900. On the writers of the old Society see
Crétineau-Joly, _Histoire de la Compagnie de Jésus_, vol. IV, ch. IV
(3rd ed., pp. 214-296).
[290] Huber, _Der Jesuiten-Orden_, pp. 418-420.
[291] _La destruction des Jésuites_, p. 43; quoted by De Badts de
Cugnac, _Les Jésuites et l’éducation_, p. 9.
[292] _Lectures on the Science of Language_ (6th ed. 1871), vol. I, p.
157, note 40.
[293] _Ib._, pp. 154-157.
[294] _Ib._, p. 174.
[295] _Ib._, p. 174.
[296] Max Müller, _l. c._, p. 175. _Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde
des Morgenlandes_, XV, 1901, pp. 313-320. Father Roth’s grammar was
extant in the Roman College, when Hervas wrote his _Catalogue_.
[297] Max Müller, _l. c._, p. 179.
[298] _Ib._, p. 183.
[299] Dahlmann, _Die Sprachkunde und die Missionen_ (Herder, 1891), p.
19.
[300] Dahlmann, _l. c._, pp. 12-15.
[301] Truebner’s _American and Oriental Literary Record_, London 1872,
p. 258. (Dahlmann, _l. c._, p. 15.)
[302] Dahlmann, _l. c._, p. 27.
[303] _Mélanges Asiatiques_, vol. II, p. 11. (Dahlmann, _l. c._, p. 28.)
[304] Dahlmann, _l. c._, pp. 40-41.
[305] _Ib._, page 42.
[306] _Zeitschrift der deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, XXXII,
p. 604. (Dahlmann, _l. c._, p. 45.)
[307] Neumann, quoted by Dahlmann, p. 25; a specimen of such plagiarism
which occurred quite recently, shall be mentioned in chapter VII.
[308] _Ib._, pp. 29-56.
[309] _Ib._, pp. 57-144.
[310] Winsor, _Narrative and Critical History of America_, Boston,
1889, vol. I, p. 279. See also pp. 262-264.
[311] Mulhall, _Between the Amazon and Andes_, London, 1881, p. 263.
(Dahlmann, _l. c._, p. 85.)
[312] _A History of Mathematics_, by Florian Cajori, Professor in
Colorado College. Macmillan, 1894, p. 155.
[313] Ball, _A Short Account of the History of Mathematics_, Macmillan,
1888, p. 275.
[314] Professor Halsted of the University of Texas published a
translation of Saccheri’s work in the _American Mathematical Monthly_,
and Professor Manning of Brown University states that he has taken
Saccheri’s method of treatment as the basis of the first chapter of his
recent book _Non-Euclidean Geometry_, Boston, Ginn and Company, 1901,
p. 92. See also Cajori, _A History of Mathematics_, p. 303.--Hagen,
_Synopsis der höheren Mathematik_, vol. II, p. 4.
[315] Meyer’s _Conversations-Lexicon_ (1895), vol. VII, p.
983.--Cajori, _A History of Physics_, Macmillan, 1899, pp. 88-89.
[316] _Ib._, vol. XV, p. 400; XVI, p. 475; and _Allgemeine deutsche
Biographie_, vol. XXX, p. 718.
[317] _Allgemeine deutsche Biographie_, vol. XVI.
[318] Mädler, _Geschichte der Himmelskunde_.
[319] Ferdinand von Richthofen, _China_, Berlin, 1877.
[320] _China_, vol. I, pp. 650-692.--See Dahlmann, _l. c._, pp.
35-37.--Huonder, _Deutsche Jesuiten-Missionäre des 17. und 18.
Jahrhunderts_ (Herder, 1899), pp. 86-89.
[321] Chapter IV, pp. 127-129.
[322] _Narrative and Critical History of America_, vol. I, pp. 262-263.
On the works of Father Clavigero on Mexico see _ib._, p. 158.
[323] _History of Pedagogy_, p. 144.
[324] Ideler, _Handbuch der Chronologie_, vol. II, pp. 602-604. See
Weiss, _Weltgeschichte_ (2nd ed.), vol. V,II, pp. 544-552.
[325] It is a rather curious fact that some have blamed the Jesuit
Superiors for allowing the publication of several of Father Hardouin’s
works, curious I say, because it is said again and again that the
severe censorship of the Order suppresses all original and independent
works of its subjects. “Do what you may, we shall find fault with you,”
seems to be the principle guiding some critics of the Order.
[326] Quoted by De Badts de Cugnac, _Les Jésuites et l’éducation_, p.
34.
[327] See Baumgartner, _Geschichte der Weltliteratur_, vol. IV, pp.
642-644.
[328] Of Herder’s works, the whole twelfth volume (Cotta, 1829),
“Terpsichore”, is devoted to Balde.
[329] The extensive literature on Balde’s works is given by
Baumgartner, _l. c._, p. 645. A most flattering estimate of this Jesuit
is to be found in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopädie für protestantische
Theologie, vol. II. (3. edition, 1897), article “Balde”, by List, where
it is said that “one always likes to return to the perusal of the
lyrics of this God-inspired man.”
[330] Saintsbury, _A History of Elizabethan Literature_, London, 1887,
pp. 119-120.
[331] Compayré asserts: “The Jesuits have never written anything on
the principles and objects of education. We must not demand of them
an exposition of general views or a confession of their educational
faith.” _L. c._, p. 142. Voltaire called Jouvancy’s _Method of
Learning and Teaching_ the best work written since Quintilian’s famous
_Institutes_.--Sacchini, Jouvancy and Kropf were published again in
1896, as vol. X of Herder’s _Bibliothek der katholischen Pädagogik_;
selections from the works of Perpinian, Bonifacio and Possevin in 1901
as vol. XI.
[332] Quick, _Educational Reformers_, p. 40. That also in the
nineteenth century the Jesuits were able to write good text-books
may be seen from a statement of Thomas Arnold, son of Dr. Arnold of
Rugby. During his sojourn in New Zealand, he used to borrow books
from Frederick Weld, a Jesuit pupil of Fribourg (afterwards Governor
of Western Australia.) “One of his text-books,” says Arnold, “which
he had brought with him from Fribourg, was a history of philosophy by
the Jesuit professor Freudenfelt [the name is Freudenfeld, died at
Stonyhurst 1850]. This book seemed to me more genially and lucidly
written than similar works that had been put in my hands at Oxford.”
_Passages in a Wandering Life_, London, 1900, p. 99.
[333] See Professor Dr. Lotholz, _Pädagogik, der Neuzeit_, 1897, p. 323.
[334] On this subject see Baumgartner, _Geschichte der Weltliteratur_,
vol. IV, pp. 623-637.
[335] Paulsen, _Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts_, vol. I, p. 358.
[336] Jouvancy, _l. c._, ch. II, art. II, §3, §6.--Masen, _Palaestra
Eloquentiae Ligatae Dramatica_, Cologne, 1664.--Lang, _Dissertatio de
Actione Scenica_ etc., Munich, 1727.
[337] That is, “the subject should be pious and edifying”, as the 13th
_Rule of the Rector_ has it.
[338] Duhr, pp. 136 foll.--In France many dramas were given in French
since 1679. Rochemonteix, _l. c._, vol. III, p. 189.--The report of
1832 says dramas should be in the vernacular. Pachtler, _op. cit._,
vol. IV, p. 479.
[339] _History of Pedagogy_, vol. I, p. 272. (Janssen’s _History of the
German People_, vol. VII, p. 108.)
[340] _Ibid._, p. 113 sq.
[341] _Ibid._, p. 117.
[342] Janssen, vol. VII, pp. 120-121.
[343] Titles and programmes of dramas in French colleges by
Rochemonteix, _l. c._, vol. III, pp. 189-195 and 215-353. The names of
the best Jesuit dramatists are given by Baumgartner, _l. c._, vol. IV,
pp. 627-637.--Janssen, _l. c._, pp. 130-134.
[344] _Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts_, vol. I, p. 418.
[345] Rochemonteix, _l. c._, pp. 96-99.
[346] Janssen, vol. VII, pp. 128-129.
[347] K. Trautmann, _Ober-Ammergau und sein Passionsspiel_ (1890).
“This play is an offshoot of the Munich Jesuit drama”, p. 47.
[348] Janssen, vol. VII, p. 133.
[349] Janssen, vol. VII, p. 125.
[350] Quoted by Janssen, vol. VII, pp. 120-121.
[351] Janssen, vol. VII, p. 133.
[352] Goethe writes: “This public performance has convinced me anew
of the cleverness of the Jesuits. They rejected nothing that could
be of any conceivable service to them, and knew how to wield their
instruments with devotion and dexterity. This is not cleverness of
the merely abstract order: it is a real fruition of the thing itself,
an absorbing interest, which springs from the practical use of life.
Just as this great spiritual society has its organ builders, its
sculptors, and its gilders, so there seem to be some who, by nature and
inclination, take to the drama; and as their churches are distinguished
by a pleasing pomp, so these prudent men have seized on the sensibility
of the world by a decent theatre.” _Italienische Reise_ (Goethe’s
Werke, Cotta’s edition, 1840, vol. XXIII, pp. 3-4).
[353] Many more are commemorated by Crétineau-Joly, _l. c._, vol. IV,
ch. III.
[354] See particularly the series of articles by the Rev. Sydney Smith,
in the _Month_ (London), 1902.
[355] Letter of August 4, 1773, in the Royal Archives at Munich.
[356] _Geschichte des Pontificats Clemens XIV._, vol. I, p. 3.
[357] So Körner in his _History of Pedagogy_.--See also the _Open
Court_, Chicago, January 1902, p. 21 foll.
[358] Alzog, _Church History_, vol. III, p. 566.
[359] _Ibid._, p. 570.
[360] Schoell, _Cours d’histoire des États européens_, vol. XXXXIV, p.
83.
[361] See documents given by Zalenski, _Les Jésuites de la
Russie-Blanche_, vol. I, livre II, ch. IV, “Frédéric II. et les
Jésuites.” Frederick strictly forbade the Bishops of his kingdom to
promulgate the Papal Brief of suppression.
[362] Maynard, _The Study and Teaching of the Society of Jesus_, p. 246.
[363] _Lettre à Voltaire_, 7. Juillet, 1770. _Oeuvres de Voltaire_,
tom. XII.
[364] See Zalenski, _l. c._, pp. 239-429.
[365] Maynard, _l. c._, p. 240.
[366] _History of the Pontificate of Clement XIV._
[367] Most flattering testimonies as to the educational success of the
Jesuits in Russia and Galicia, at the time of the suppression, are
given by Zalenski, _Les Jésuites de la Russie Blanche_, Paris 1886.
[368] _Bibliogr. Astron._, 1792, p. 722; see Maynard, p. 205.--For many
decades it was suspected that Father Hell had tampered with the figures
of his observations after others had been published, so as to make his
square with the rest. In the _Atlantic Monthly_, Nov. 1900, Professor
Simon Newcomb, of the Washington Naval Observatory, completely
exonerates Father Hell from this malicious charge. The distinguished
American Astronomer, who professes in his article a personal affection
for the Jesuit scientist, has examined the manuscripts of Father Hell,
in Vienna, and found that the accusation was groundless, and based on
the assertion of a man whose sight was defective. Professor Newcomb
further affirms that Father Hell’s observations gave figures somewhat
different from those of other astronomers, but that recent discoveries
have proved the Jesuit’s observations to have been the more correct
ones.
[369] _Histoire des Mathématiques_, par J. F. Montucla, tome IV, achevé
et publié par Jérôme de la Lande, Paris, 1802, pp. 347 foll.
[370] _Bibliotheca Mathematica, Zeitschrift für Geschichte der
mathematischen Wissenschaften_, 3. Folge, 3. Band, 2. Heft, 1902
(Leipzig, Teubner), pp. 208-225.
[371] De Badts de Cugnac, _Les Jésuites et l’éducation_, p. 11.
[372] Jourdain, _Histoire de l’Université de Paris_, vol. II, pp.
298-300.
[373] Abbé Maynard, _l. c._, p. 237.
[374] _Pensées de Leibnitz_, p. 429. (Maynard, _l. c._, p. 238.)
[375] Maynard, _l. c._, p. 242.
[376] _Notes of Conversations with the Duke of Wellington_, by the Earl
of Stanhope, London, Murray, 1888, p. 42.
[377] _Historisches Jahrbuch_, Munich 1885, vol. VI, p. 420.
[378] _Encyclopedia Britannica_, article “Education”.
[379] Quoted in the _Annales Philosophiques, Morales, et Littéraires_,
by M. de Boulogne, vol. I, p. 221.
[380] The London _Tablet_, Dec. 7, 1901, p. 884.